[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1512684709.25033.18.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 14:11:49 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mst@...hat.com, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
tom@...bertland.com, aconole@...hat.com, wexu@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V3] tun: add eBPF based queue selection method
On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 17:31 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> This patch introduces an eBPF based queue selection method. With
> this,
> the policy could be offloaded to userspace completely through a new
> ioctl TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF.
Sorry for the delay, I see this patch was merged already.
...
> static void tun_free_netdev(struct net_device *dev)
> {
> struct tun_struct *tun = netdev_priv(dev);
> @@ -1996,6 +2068,9 @@ static void tun_free_netdev(struct net_device
> *dev)
> free_percpu(tun->pcpu_stats);
> tun_flow_uninit(tun);
> security_tun_dev_free_security(tun->security);
> + rtnl_lock();
> + __tun_set_steering_ebpf(tun, NULL);
> + rtnl_unlock();
> }
I am pretty sure tun_free_netdev() (aka ->priv_destructor()) can be
called under RTNL (say from register_netdevice())
So this will dead lock badly ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists